search for: alsaker

...) For LLILAC, if this attribute is present but the string is empty, this can be a signal that the check must be emitted inline, either as a sequence of stores or a loop. This also addresses David's concern with the hardcoded __probestack symbol name. On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 2:23 AM, John Kåre Alsaker < john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: > Since David Majnemer doesn't seem overly eager to merge my patches, > let's see if we can't figure things out here. > > I noticed a string function attribute appeared in LangRef.rst, would > that be the correct place to do...

...we can't figure things out here. I noticed a string function attribute appeared in LangRef.rst, would that be the correct place to document this? For reference: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9653 http://reviews.llvm.org/D9654 http://reviews.llvm.org/D9858 On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, John Kåre Alsaker <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: > I updated http://reviews.llvm.org/D4717 and also wrote an __probestack > implementation: > https://github.com/Zoxc/compiler-rt/compare/llvm-mirror:master...stprobe > > Which instruction would be the preferable one to probe with? I used...

...Which instruction would be the preferable one to probe with? I used OR since that's what GCC/libgcc does, but I don't see why that would be better than a write. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:53 AM, John Kåre Alsaker < > john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Would the __probestack functions be a suitable addition to compiler-rt? >> Does it already have __chkstk or is that provided by something else on >> Windows? I noticed that libgcc implemented them in cygwin.S. >> &g...

...table addition to compiler-rt? Does it already have __chkstk or is that provided by something else on Windows? I noticed that libgcc implemented them in cygwin.S. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 08/01/2014 05:38 PM, John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > > wrote: > >> Thanks for the explanation. I'm used to hearing the term "stack >> banging" used for this mechanism, but I understand your objective. >> >&...

...platform stack probing function would be (replicating the ugly logic in X86FrameLowering::emitStackProbeCall). If LLVM in the future always inlined the call, the stack probe function would never be called and the attribute argument is useless. - > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 2:23 AM, John Kåre Alsaker > <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Since David Majnemer doesn't seem overly eager to merge my patches, >> let's see if we can't figure things out here. >> >> I noticed a string function attribute appeared in LangRef.rst, would >>...

...tly the same. One extension I'm open for is to always force a probe which ensures the stack overflow happens in a well defined point in the prologue. That could be used for languages which can recover from stack overflows. > > Philip > > > > On 07/31/2014 07:27 PM, John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > > The point of this is to cheaply detect all stack overflows using a guard > page. For a guard page to actually detect all stack overflows, we need to > ensure that the code touches each page of the stack in the right order, > otherwise it could skip the guard page and write...

...eck (if that worked). On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Giving a bit of background and motivation would be good here. What are > you trying to accomplish and why? > > Philip > > > On 07/28/2014 04:16 PM, John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > > Hi, I want to add a stack probe function attribute which would insert > stack probes on all platforms, not just Windows. This will be useful for > Rust since it must guarantee that the stack can't overflow, which it > currently abuses the segmented stack support for. I...

Hi, I want to add a stack probe function attribute which would insert stack probes on all platforms, not just Windows. This will be useful for Rust since it must guarantee that the stack can't overflow, which it currently abuses the segmented stack support for. I'm not sure which kind of attribute is appropriate here. It must be added to the caller when inlined and clients of LLVM should

Hi, Is there a hook or a method to execute some code after a whole feature has run or will I need to embed that in a ''Then''? Regards Aidy

...FERENCES > http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits or this: > From: John Kåre Alsaker <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtins: Add __probestack support functions for x86 > To: john.mailinglists at gmail.com > Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, howard.hinnant at gmail.com > Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:13:07 +0000 (5 hours, 39 minutes, 29 seconds...

I just found this one: http://tinyurl.com/3c3mfa David, are there any other RSpec books in the works? With Regards, Cody Skidmore

Since Rust references usually never aliases it would be nice if we could exploit this for code generation. One idea I had to improve alias analysis is to insert metadata on pointer loads. !inheritalias could be added to load instructions to indicate that if we know all the aliases of the pointer we load from, then we also know all the aliases of the pointer value loaded. Given that pointer loads

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:25 AM, John Kåre Alsaker < john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Yeah, the function attributes section of LangRef is a reasonable place to > > put stuff like this: > > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#functi...

...>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> llvm-commits mailing list >>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >> >> or this: >> >>> From: John Kåre Alsaker <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtins: Add __probestack support functions for x86 >>> To: john.mailinglists at gmail.com >>> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, howard.hinnant at gmail.com >>> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:13:07 +0000...

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:25 AM, John Kåre Alsaker > <john.mailinglists at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> > Yeah, the function attributes section of LangRef is a reasonable place >> > to >> > put stuff like this: >> &gt...

I started to implement inlining of the stack probe function based on Microsoft's inlined stack probes in https://github.com/Microsoft/llvm/tree/MS. Do we know why the stack pointer cannot be updated in a loop (which results in ideal code)? I noticed that was commented in Microsoft's code. I suspect this is due to debug or unwinding information, since it is allowed on Windows x86-32. I